McBell
Unbound
I can not stop doing something I am not doing.
Already answered
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well no one has ever given a reasonable answer without God.
McBell
Unbound
Your opinion is duly noted.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Noted.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
And of course you think you know scripture whereas others don't. All Christians claim to know scripture but they don't agree on what it means.
What does that tell you?
What the verses mean is all in how you interpret them.
And the Bible says........
You can make the Bible say anything you want to believe by mixing and matching verses and cherry-picking verses to try to support your beliefs.
Also, what the verses mean is all in how you interpret them.
Just out of curiosity where do you think the Bible says that the unsaved do not know much about what the Bible says spiritually?
What is salvation? Who are the saved and the unsaved? How does one get saved?
I'll bet if I ask different Christians they would give me different answers. What does that tell you?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
See 1 Corinthians 2 is just one place where the unsaved cannot understand spiritual truth from the word of God.
Your other point is true, "Christians" have very many different beliefs and would answer differently about questions about the word of God.
That happens to be predicted by the word of God and there are very many reasons why that is so.
There are many unsaved who say they are Christians and there are very many infiltrators who mislead.
That is why one must study scripture.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Maybe you are referring to these verses?
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
These verses are comparing the natural man to the spiritual man. They say nothing about the unsaved.
You still have not answered my questions about saved vs. unsaved.
What is salvation? Who are the saved and the unsaved? How does one get saved?
Another question I have is: Saved from what?
That is what all Christians say. Then they study scripture but interpret it differently.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
A saved person is spiritual and a non saved person is natural. The phrases, Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God show that that is true.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You still have not answered my questions about saved.
What is salvation? How does one get saved? Saved from what?
How do you define spiritual?
How do you define natural?
Why is a saved person spiritual? Why is a spiritual person saved?
Why is a non-saved person natural? Why is a natural person not saved?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my. You really need to work on those logic skills.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And you would know
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
As far as evolution goes...I've got a few questions about the fossil record and speciation.
1. The four known mechanisms of natural change : Natural selection, mutations, gene exchange, and epigenetics all require long periods -very long periods - of time to produce change.
All but genetic mutations generate relatively small step changes. But the vast majority of mutations are supposedly neutral. They cause neither harm nor benefit. Of those that are nonneutral, it has been calculated that harmful mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by a factor of 10,000 to 1, sometimes 10,000,000 to one.
This explains why ecologists observe far far more extinction events than speciation events in field studies.
All these processes require long...very long periods to produce significant changes. But those changes also require a stable or gradually changing environment to be beneficial. Catastrophic or rapid changes in the environment would negate these changes or cause extinction outright.
Now we all know that earths environment, while it can seem pretty stable to us in our short lifespans, is actually pretty vibrant. Especially in earths early years. If speciation takes billions of years of fairly stable conditions for mutations to be beneficial then this seems like a very long shot. And a shot that's been taken over and over again.
2. All the natural processes predict a bottom-up development of taxonomic hierarchy. Over time we should see a proliferation of species first then with a lot more time we should see a proliferation of genera etc. until one or more phyla finally appear.
However, the fossil record reveals the opposite. It reveals a top down hierarchy.
" As paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and John Sepkoski have observed with respect to the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, “The major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families.”"
The most advanced phylum appears at the same time as the most primitive Cambrian phyla.
And they appear in the fossil record, coincidentally, (serendipitously?) at the same time the minimum level of oxygen they require is reached - 10% and not over millions of years but within a relatively short period of time at the beginning of the Cambrian not its middle or end. That's why they call it an explosion apparently. Both nonvertebrate chordates and vertebrates appear at that time.
Fifty animal phyla appeared at that time. Thirty exist on earth today. Of those 30, at least 28 were present during the Cambrian period and most of those at its beginning.
"paleontologists Kevin Peterson, Michael Dietrich, and Mark McPeek state in a review paper, “Elucidating the materialistic basis for the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself.”"
Ref: Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” BioEssays 31, no. 7 (July 2009): 737, doi:10.1002/bies.200900033.
And apparently
"Nearly all paleontologists who have written reviews on the Cambrian explosion in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have made this concession."
Ref: Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?” BioScience 58, no. 9 (October 2008): 855, doi:10.1641/B580912; Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist32, no. 1 (January–February, 1992): 131, doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.123.
How do we explain these things evolutionarily.
1. The four known mechanisms of natural change : Natural selection, mutations, gene exchange, and epigenetics all require long periods -very long periods - of time to produce change.
All but genetic mutations generate relatively small step changes. But the vast majority of mutations are supposedly neutral. They cause neither harm nor benefit. Of those that are nonneutral, it has been calculated that harmful mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by a factor of 10,000 to 1, sometimes 10,000,000 to one.
This explains why ecologists observe far far more extinction events than speciation events in field studies.
All these processes require long...very long periods to produce significant changes. But those changes also require a stable or gradually changing environment to be beneficial. Catastrophic or rapid changes in the environment would negate these changes or cause extinction outright.
Now we all know that earths environment, while it can seem pretty stable to us in our short lifespans, is actually pretty vibrant. Especially in earths early years. If speciation takes billions of years of fairly stable conditions for mutations to be beneficial then this seems like a very long shot. And a shot that's been taken over and over again.
2. All the natural processes predict a bottom-up development of taxonomic hierarchy. Over time we should see a proliferation of species first then with a lot more time we should see a proliferation of genera etc. until one or more phyla finally appear.
However, the fossil record reveals the opposite. It reveals a top down hierarchy.
" As paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and John Sepkoski have observed with respect to the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, “The major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families.”"
The most advanced phylum appears at the same time as the most primitive Cambrian phyla.
And they appear in the fossil record, coincidentally, (serendipitously?) at the same time the minimum level of oxygen they require is reached - 10% and not over millions of years but within a relatively short period of time at the beginning of the Cambrian not its middle or end. That's why they call it an explosion apparently. Both nonvertebrate chordates and vertebrates appear at that time.
Fifty animal phyla appeared at that time. Thirty exist on earth today. Of those 30, at least 28 were present during the Cambrian period and most of those at its beginning.
"paleontologists Kevin Peterson, Michael Dietrich, and Mark McPeek state in a review paper, “Elucidating the materialistic basis for the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself.”"
Ref: Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” BioEssays 31, no. 7 (July 2009): 737, doi:10.1002/bies.200900033.
And apparently
"Nearly all paleontologists who have written reviews on the Cambrian explosion in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have made this concession."
Ref: Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?” BioScience 58, no. 9 (October 2008): 855, doi:10.1641/B580912; Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist32, no. 1 (January–February, 1992): 131, doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.123.
How do we explain these things evolutionarily.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
In my opinion, from a Christian perspective, salvation is coming into alignment with Gods will.
One gets saved by being willing to align oneself with that will - accepting Jesus's sacrifice and right to rule over all of creation, accepting that there is a right way and a wrong way of self conduct and that these things can be known either through studying sacred scripture or self examination etc..
One is saved from their own banal crassness which ultimately results in existential annihilation.
Hope for salvation is expressed in the desire for an elevated existence where perfect justice is possible.
Now if one is perfectly fine with existing the way they are and then not existing one day with no care for hope in a future so defined then I doubt you'd care to try and understand the above let alone determine if there is any truth in it. After all time is precious so why waste it on things one doesn't care to do
.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I think that's because studying scripture isn't supposed to be a cure all. How you interpret or behave towards scripture is a test and testament to who you are as a person.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I have never heard a Christian define salvation that way. Most Christians tell me that salvation, i.e. to be saved, involves believing that Jesus died on the cross to save us from the original sin of Adam and Eve. Why use the word 'saved' unless there is something to be saved from?
All that said, I believe our ultimate purpose is to align ourselves with God's will, but the that brings up another question. What is God's will? Not everyone is going to agree on the answer.
I agree that it is God's will is to accept Jesus' sacrifice, although I believe there is more that we need to accept. As a Baha'i, I believe it is also God's will that we recognize Baha'u'llah as a Messenger of God and adhere to His teachings and laws.
I believe that God rules over all of creation, and since I do not believe that Jesus is God, I do not believe that Jesus rules over all of creation.
I agree that there is a right way and a wrong way of self conduct and that these things can be known either through studying sacred scripture or self examination etc.
That is basically what I believe. If we need to be 'saved' from anything, it is our on material nature, our lower selfish nature.
I guess you are referring to a desire for heaven? I do not believe that perfect justice is possible in this earthly life.
I guess you are referring to nonbelievers, who are perfectly fine with existing the way they are and have no belief in a future life beyond this earthly life. Indeed, why would they care to try and understand the above let alone determine if there is any truth in it? After all, time is precious, so why waste it on things one doesn't even believe exist - God and an afterlife? They are perfectly fine with existing the way they are and they believe that this earthly life is all there is, so they want to get the most out of it, since they believe their time is limited.Now if one is perfectly fine with existing the way they are and then not existing one day with no care for hope in a future so defined then I doubt you'd care to try and understand the above let alone determine if there is any truth in it. After all time is precious so why waste it on things one doesn't care to do
That just reminded me of some of my favorite verses. I wonder how many people understand the significance of what Jesus said.
John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
From a Baha'i perspective, those Bible verses are about attachment to the life in this world.
“The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not of those that have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion.”
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, I can and do use references that show logical errors, how to form a proper premise, etc..
To often I see false premises in your "logical arguments'. That means even if you follow the form your argument still fails.
A premise has to be agreed upon by both parties. If one rejects a premise of the other then the one forming a logical argument has only "proven" it to himself. That is of no value. Now can one show that the rejection of a premise is invalid? Yes, that can be done quite often since people will reject premises for invalid reasons. But until the person making the argument does that he has essentially lost.
For example, you could try to form a logical argument on why Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President. If your first premise was that George Washington was the first President and I rejected that it would be rather easy for you to show that I was wrong. But one thing to remember is that the burden of proof is upon the person making the argument. So he has to be willing to refute even such weak denials.
As to your induction argument you tried to base it on "irreducible complexity". That led me to rejecting that argument since no one has demonstrated that they exist. They have only been claimed to have exist and that is not "proof" at all. And even worse than that i can show you example after example of "irreducible complex" events that have been refuted.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Logic failure on your part.
Failure to communicate on your part.